Bitcoin Forum

Note:Translated from Jiang Zhuo’er’s original post in Chinese.
Recently, as the discussion around activating Segwit on Litecoin becomes more and more intense, many people have been asking me why my Litecoin pool is not voting for Segwit. I feel the need to address the whole Segwit issue with the following thoughts of mine.


1. The big-block camp has never been opposed to Segwit, but rather they are opposed to Segwit without also increasing the block size.
2. The result of our hard work on Litecoin: The LTC Roundtable.
3. The development and stagnation of the Roundtable.
4. The market drives changes
5. More and more attacks
http://news.8btc.com/why-i-am-still-not-voting-for-segwit-an-open-letter-from-jiangzhuoer

i can see why many are disagreeing with SegWit on bitcoin (less than 70% of bitcoin hashrate) and what he says but in my opinion what he did in Litecoin is completely unacceptable because more than 80% of the existing litecoin hashrate of that time accepted SegWit activation on litecoin and then out of nowhere new hashrate was redirected to litecoin to crush the activation and change the balance.

- currently at 71%

The solution for this, will be to implement SegWit on more Alt coins to split the instigators hashing power even more. Some big pools will do anything in their power to stop SegWit, because they know what will happen. If SegWit is activated on a Alt coin and it proves to be successful, many people will start to support it and these pools know that.

BTC Core should push for activation on multiple Alt coins that are compatible with it and not just stop with LiteCoin and Bitcoin. 

nobody cares about SegWit on a random altcoin that nobody uses apart from trading them.
litecoin is different, because 1. it is exact copy of bitcoin with little change 2. it is old and it is being used.

and FYI SegWit is on some other altcoins, a couple of them have even activated SegWit.
if you are interested, these coins are:
- Groestlcoin
- Viacoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1840789.0
- SysCoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1466445.0
- a couple more that are signalling or considering that i forgot!

What is required to implement segwit on altcoin?

is it? where? i don't remember litecoin being used as a currency like bitcoin, it's the same shitty coin as before, equal to the other alt that are activating segwit, for instance vertcoin is also on track with segwith, and vertcoin is another big coin

people are just blindly attached to litecoin that's why they think it deserve more attention even now wiht segwit, which is only to increase the hype and do a random pump


signaling for a whole period of the diff retarget if i'm not mistaken, just reaching the threshold % activation won't cut it

as a currency: yes
like bitcoin: no.
where: https://www.google.com/search?q=spend+litecoin
more specifically: https://litecoin.com/services#merchants (check other categories on the left side too).

i am not hyping litecoin (unlike many these days) i don't think it can change that much about litecoin even with SegWit.
but i wouldn't call it a shitcoin either. it is the oldest altcoin with one of the biggest communities and it has lots of similarities to bitcoin and that is why i said it is different on litecoin than other altcoins.

not sure exactly.
but since SegWit is about malleability fix on top of other things, i suppose the altcoin has to be following the same transaction structure and the same signature.

I think most altcoins can simply push segwit as an update. The communities are very small so it will generally be accepted pretty easily.

The only barrier is a dev that can code segwit if their coin is not a direct copy of a coin that already has a working version of segwit.

Thats actually really smart, that could work. I don't see any other good ideas.

This has zero relevance to activating Segwit on LTC.

Not a reason to not vote for Segwit.

It is the same as above.

No. The same people that are spreading FUD about Segwit and FUD about 51% attacking the network are the same ones pumping those scam coins.

This is only due to the Segwit signalling.

This is a complete lie. UASF only has unfortunate ramifications for malicious actors.

---

Tl;dr: This guy has zero real reasons (technology wise) to not support Segwit. The only reason for which he doesn't is politics, which effectively makes him a baboon and a mere pawn in this game.

That the alt coin contains the same bugs as bitcoin that need to be fixed :)

I dont see any problem to it besides this solution eliminates bitcoin scaling and malleability then maybe this solution may fix some of litecoins problem.
Litecoin just happened to be an exact copy of Bitcoin that's why segwit is being implemented to it.

I disagree, it's not a long term elimination to these issues at all, only a part fix.
Transactions are native keys are still malleable. Only transactions on segwit keys on non-malleable = partial fix, not elimination.
The scaling requires the use of segwit transactions (and still has a limit) = partial fix, not elimination.

In the case of LN, people will still only want spending money in an LN channel, not risk there savings. So more on-chain capacity will be required for it to be effective, so people can move money between 'savings' accounts and 'current' accounts for the want of an analogy.

Have you ever considered what will happen in the event of a UASF? Without miner majority, those implementing the UASF are the malicious actors. It's a charge of the light brigade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_of_the_Light_Brigade) moment in this situation.

So now know Litecoin's activation has nothing to do with, er, Litecoin, and everything to do with Bitcoin. What a worm.

^ this guy now wants blockstream(core) to not only control bitcoin but other alts too..

seriously.. i think Kakmakr doesnt understand decentralised diversity



and here is lauda soo much deeper in the blockstream should own and control everything. that if a community say no to a half baked feature, then instead of re-thinking the half baked feature to re-do it in a way thats fully cooked with all the toppings including. he wants to treat anyone saying no as malicious.

seriously guys
learn consensus
learn decentralised diversity

stop being corporate ass kissers and really think about why bitcoin was invented in the first place!

The amount of hashrate is really non-important. If practically every business and all exchanges support UASF, miners must join that chain or be left mining useless coins. You need to re-think the whole proposal out of the r/btc propaganda and re-think the incentives that it creates.

Wrong. If anything, Segwit has a supermajority of support in all three fields: users, developers, economy. You can continue to attempt spreading false information, but as long as certain individuals are around it won't work.

Ironically, you don't know either.

Litecoin should not accept segwit. Litecoin has operated well over the years without any flaws and the number of ltc users are only small thus it does not to adopt segwit at its current condition. Possibly if the situation of LTC is like bitcoin then probably they would mind choosing segwit but in their case segwit will not be a necessary upgrade for the LTC system.

your the kind of guy that would think that being vegetarian is the only way to eat because daddy vegan only feeds you veg and you only visit veg stores.

get out and explore the world realise that there is more then just the Monsanto carrots on offer and that the world should not be owned by monsanto veg stores

"super majority" 31% of blocks...

SegWit and blocksize are two different issues. SegWit offers lots of advantages, and should be activated asap. Bigger blocks turn the Bitcoin delivery van into a lumbering articulated lorry, what is required is a rapid Bitcoin motorcycle delivery service with smaller faster blocks.

The keyword is 'if'. The exchanges and business that don't follow the UASF will increase their business. That's a big incentive for them to follow the majority hash rate. You need to re-think the whole proposal out of the r/bitcoin propaganda and re-think the incentives that it creates.

Perhaps you don't understand the Mutual Assured Destruction that a contentious fork will create.

1. try to explain what advantages segwit ACTUALLY offer THE WHOLE NETWORK . i mean GUARANTEED features that are ACTUALLY achieved

Inadequate support == no UASF. It's as simple as that.

No. FYI there were flag day soft forks in the past too (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0030.mediawiki).

Cut out the bullshit and stop supporting hashrate attacks on the network, which is essentially what BU BTU is.

A lot of people are waiting to start using Segwit TXs, that's your guarantee (partial, not 100% Utopian bullshit that you're talking about). On the other hand, BTU guaranteed features == none.

"alot" "partial" "not 100%" sounds a bit flimsy

also thinking that its only a BU vs debate shows how limited your scope of judgement is.
there are more than a dozen implementations.

you use terms that are obvious repeats from the same reddit crowd.

just get yourself out of your cabin fever and tke a look outside of the box at the whole network and not just the glossy images that are in favour of corporate blockstream control.

as for the people that are waiting to start using segwit tx's.
those people are not the people that perform malleation/quadratics anyway. so nothing changes in that respect
those that are performing malleation/quadratics are the people that wont use segwit keys. so they will still malleate and quadratic spam the network.
meaning no fix

Erm, can you explain the point you are trying to make? Was there a big hoohah about it at the time? Who were the actors opposing such a change?

I can't see why anyone would oppose this fix.

You should not ask why LTC is easy to accept segwit and bitcoin is not acceptable. Because bitcoin requires a high approval rate (95%), while LTCs only need 75%, an easy rate for a currency that has come a long time ago and needs innovation. So, as soon as LTC made the segwit proposal, it was a lot of people agreeing. In addition, bitcoin does not need a segwit, it is really powerful enough for it to work independently.

All three are accurate representations of the reality. Anything else is an outright lie.

Straw man argument.

No.

Miners can and will prioritize Segwit transactions in such cases. I have told you this several times, yet you keep misleading others like a true paid hypocrite.

The same goes for Segwit. There is no rational reason to oppose it.

there is

TRY READING THE CODE!!!!!!

your opinion is moot.
you have not even read the code

you have not read the full documentation
you have only said "wrong, no, insult, strawman"

you have failed to show you fully understand it

for a year now i have gave you many oppertunities to actually spend time learning it all.
but your arrogance and devotion to blockstream have blinded you

just read the damned code and documentation in full

---

even your own words have debunked your own opinion..

one minute you say pools will prioritise segwit transactions yet for the last few weeks you have been crying about how some pools are abstaining or rejecting segwit.

68% of pools blocks are rejecting/abstaining segwit. so dont be fooled by the reddit narrative that pools will prioritise segwit.

WAKE UP to reality

1) You can't know what I've read or what I haven't read.
2) Your completely intentional or unintentional missunderstanding of Segwit shows that either:
   2.1) You haven't read either one.
   2.2) You have read it, but you don't understand it.

One has nothing to do with the other and this has nothing to do with reddit. This is my own conclusion.

A lot of people are not behind the SegWit right now, which is kind of understandable for me, because they need 95% of approval for that.
In my opinion, it will never happen in bitcoin, way too many miners are standing behind Bitcoin Unlimited, which basically makes SegWit impossible to implement.
Another important reason, is that im sure there are some miners that do not really care about SegWit or hard-fork either, they just want to stay on current Bitcoin Core without any changes.

So I hope that the BTC community will find altogether some solution, unless we really want to see blockchain being blocked by big amount of transactions every day.

1. you have admitted you cant read C++, you ave admitted you cant read walls of text

2.1. i have quote code, i have quoted documentation. i have even shown examples of simple tweaks that could be considered as something more of the community could unite around

2.2 i have actually told you about the emphasis of the key utility and not the activation itself being the important part of segwits half gesture.
and all you can do is pleaded ignorant for a couple months then suddenly find a script that admits what have have said, but with subtle word twists.
such as how its a 'opt-in'.

but your still not getting the point. its not a network fix. its not a consensus implementation. its a back door half gesture with only if's buts and maybe's

yet the actual network effect is negative (the tier network)

atleast get passed the word twisting from your groupy mindset of blockstream adoration.. as thats temporary. just like segwits half baked gestures are temporary..
try to think with a critical hat and not a utopian sales pitch hat.

your only argument its to literally fail at describing segwit and to also fail at pidgeon holing me.


think about bitcoins 120+year and not blockstreams couple year 'experiment'

Wrong. Pretty much everyone besides a small minority of users, a few corrupt characters (Ver, Hearn, Andersen, Rizun, et. al.) and Jihan are in support of Segwit. Some pools have officially not made up their minds yet though.

I can read C++, I don't code C++. That's a major difference. If you familiar with one of the high end languages, it doesn't take much to understand the syntax of another.

This is a lie, and yet another example of you posting false information. I've said that reading your worthless walls of text is a waste of time.

Quoting part != reading everything & understanding.

You understand nothing.

This is another lie. I wonder how much $ you get per post.

You are missing the big picture. Litecoin is different to the rest of coins.

1) It's the longest surviving blockchain (except bitcoin). This makes investors have way more confidence when taking big risks. A coin that could be unlisted from an exchange (like the rest of coins you mentioned) aren't attractive for the long term. But we all know that LTC will be here for life on the big exchanges.

2) It's basically a bitcoin clone, which is perfect to port code from BTC to LTC. It becomes the ideal way to test segwit in a real scenario. Lightning Network developers will move there, increasing the marketcap several times. We'll see an all time high on LTC, im not sure when, but we will eventually, that im sure of.

LTC is going to overtake BTC if segwit implemented?

I'm amazed you still have the patience to respond to this troll. 

Lauda  loves to argue technical points, and when an argument is refuted,
he just pivots his argument to a different point.

He's a successful troll because he's been able to use this tactic over and over
while being so wrong and arrogant than he baits you into further responding
to nonsense.